Talk:Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany

DYK

Did I know that Charlotte Stuart was the illegitimate daughter of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the secret mistress of the Archbishop of Bordeaux? Well, as a matter of fact I did! All the more reason for me to say thanks for expanding this article and bringing it to the front page. Good work. --House of Scandal 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

fact tagging

All/most of the sentences that have been tagged with {fact}, are taken from Kybert's book. The book is already cited six times in the footnotes, and in the bibliography. Do we really need it cited after every sentence?--Doc^g 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The greatest problem with citing Kybett so often is that her book was universally disparaged by the most noted historians on Jacobite History and called a nasty 'hatchet job' on Charles Edward Stuart.  She apparently used the anti-Stuart propaganda from the archives as 'primary sources' material, not considering the prejudice of the source.  Her conclusions contradict so many of the first hand reports of those who knew Charles Edward, it would seem the wide spread criticism from scholars was justified.  Many of the statements made in this article for which she is cited, are indeed highly biased.  McLynn is a much better source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:8100:BE10:38E7:FCB1:B731:29B1 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 

• Yes, per WP:V. Any statements that are likely to be challenged need to be cited. The reader doesn't know that they all come from the same book - you have to tell the reader that, tedious though it may be (I tried to select the sections of the article that I felt could be challenged; they were carefully considered fact tags). Wikipedia tends toward the conservative side on citation, meaning "when in doubt, cite", particularly in GA and FA articles. Awadewit | talk 09:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article was very entertaining to read and it is quite close to GA, but it still needs a bit of work.

• The most important item to fix is the sourcing. Much of the article was unsourced - whole paragraphs would go by without a citation. I have added fact tags where I think there should be citations.

done

• I would also tone down some of the language; while the article was entertaining, I wonder about adjectives such as "miserable". Something to keep in mind. Wikipedia is not a novel. :)

done - but it isn't boring either is it?

• The lead needs to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. See WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads - they are tricky!

fixed - it is a short article, so the lead will also be short

• The headings in this article are not intuitive: Life, Reconciliation, Descendants. Try to break up Charlotte's "Life" into logical, chronological sections rather than labeling one whole section "Life" (the subsequent section also deals with her "life", so it is confusing to the reader).

fixed

• I would explain what the "Jacobite rising" was so that sentences such as However, by this stage the Jacobite pretensions were farcical anyway make sense later on.

done

• The third paragraph of "Reconciliation" offers some personal details for the first time, but they are hard for the reader to put into context because we have had so inkling of Charlotte's character before this. For example, what was Charlotte's relationship with her mother? Could more along this line be added?

Sources don't give that information. I can't invent it.

• They were brought up in anonymity, their identities concealed by a variety of alias and ruses, not even being mentioned in Charlotte’s detailed will. - Intriguing - do we know what these were?

That's what my sources say. I've no more.

• Occasionally it has been suggested that Prince Charles married Clementina Walkinshaw, and thus that Charlotte was, in fact, legitimate and could legally claim to be her father's successor. - By whom? Such statements are most important to substantiate and make as clear as possible.

Removed for now

• "References" should be in their own section (see WP:LAYOUT).

Done

• Could a family tree be added to the page?

done

• Might dates be added to the captions of the paintings?

Can't find the dates in my sources

An enjoyable read; some work and I am sure it will pass GA. If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Whilst I don't agree with all of this, it is helpful. The article is largely sourced from the Kybert book, so I'm not sure what you expect here, a reference to the same book at the end of each sentence? The lead sums up who she was and her significance. I see no real need for more in a shortarticle. We don't anything about her relationship with her mother - the sources for her life are scant - I suspect there's no more we can say. I've reordered the headings. Dates are unavailable for the paintings. I'll take another look at the prose, though.--Doc^g 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have pased the article as a GA. This seems an excellent article, a good article indeed. I can see no faults. I am happy to say it is a GA. Giano (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Is there much point in having a bunch of rare out-of-print books listed for further reading? Especially when some sources indicate they are of dubious reliability?--Doc^g 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Hettie Tayler's book is mentioned in the text of the article, as are Charlotte's letters, and Lady Buchan was a notable author writing about a notable figure. DrKiernan (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Then would they not be better as foonotes, since most readers will find them inaccessible for "further reading". Only a small % of readers will have access to a university library with inter-library loan facilities. When I see "further reading", I expect books I can actually read.--Doc^g 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK by me. DrKiernan (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

Should we describe her as "Duchess of Albany" given that her claim to it is tenuous, and Charlotte Stuart already directs here, there is no need for disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

She is known as Duchess of Albany - her legal claim is beside the point, since the article explains it. We don't need to concern ourselves with the propriety of peerages, or defending the integrity of the honours system, since we're not Burke's peerage.--Scott Mac 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But if she is the only notable Charlotte Stuart, wouldn't it be more simple and less "controversial" to shorten the title to Charlotte Stuart? Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the controversy. Why shorten it to something that's less akin to what she's commentary known as? Burns addressed his poem to "Albany".--Scott Mac 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

carer/caregiver

"carer" is correct. It is British English, as per this article. "care giver" is a US term, not used in the UK. Please don't change it.--Scott Mac 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Pininski's claim

I am sorry to say that a recent article 'The marriages of the granddaughter of Bonnie Prince Charlie', by Marie-Louse Backhurst, in Genealogists' Magazine, vol. 31, no. 2 (June 2013) pages 45-49, completely destroys Peter Pininski's claims and it is now clear that Victoire Adelaide Rohenstart, born at Paris about 1780, married firstly a French military doctor, Pierre Joseph Marie de St Ursin (1763-1818), at St Roche, Paris, 14 November 1804. Their son Theodore Marie de St Ursin seems to have been born in Paris about 1810 and is clearly the child mentioned by Peter Pininski (page 269) as Antime, Pininski having confused Victoire Adelaide with her cousin Marie Victoire de Thorigny. The subsequent history of this son has not been found but he was alive in Paris in 1823. The relationships are clearly confirmed by some diary entries of one Dr Jonas Asplin (quoted in the article) who was a witness at Victoire Adelaide's second marriage to Captain D'Auvergne. AnthonyCamp (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

FA Status Query

I think the article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are a number of issues that need remedying. This include numerous sentences without references, a lack of clear consensus re children/descendants and insufficient coverage from other sources. Some of the text could be more concise. Debatable if it meets FA well-written and well-researched criteria now; the FA was in 2007. Coldupnorth (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Have tried to add some further sources but I still think this article is well below FA standard. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)